Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (11) TMI 125 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2015 (11) TMI 125 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - TMI - Addition made in respect of undisclosed stock - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that:- Tribunal has recorded concurrent findings of fact to the effect that the revenue had failed to establish that there was in fact any difference in the quantity of stock and has thereafter merely applied the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Veerdip Rollers (P.) Ltd. [ 2007 (10) TMI 376 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] wherein in a similar set of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uch less, a substantial question of law, so as to warrant interference. - Decided against revenue. - Tax Appeal No. 737 of 2015 - Dated:- 12-10-2015 - Harsha Devani And A. G. Uraizee, JJ. For the Appellant : Mrs Mauna M Bhatt, Adv ORDER ( Per : Honourable Ms. Justice Harsha Devani ) 1. The appellant revenue in this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") has challenged the order dated 19.3.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Trib .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssessee is assessed in the status of an individual. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment for assessment year 2005-06 and framed assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act on 7.12.2010 making an addition on account of difference in value of closing stock as submitted before the revenue and before the Nutan Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide order dated 1.7.2011, deleted the addition of S .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

issioner (Appeals) deleted the addition. The revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal but did not succeed. 3. Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that as per the stock statement submitted by the assessee company before Nutan Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. as on 31.3.2005 there was a stock worth ₹ 61,98,448/- whereas the company has shown stock in books of accounts at ₹ 29,55,633/- .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f ₹ 32,42,815/- which was not shown by the assessee in its return of income. It was, accordingly, submitted that the appeal requires consideration and deserves to be admitted on the question as proposed or as may be deemed fit by this court. 4. This court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and has perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal as well as the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and the Appellate Commissioner. 5. A perusal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

records and quantity tallied from the paper book page 74 to 134. The total value disclosed in the books and as per quantity details was ₹ 29,55,633/-. The Commissioner (Appeals), accordingly, found that there was no quantity difference in the stock found by the Assessing Officer on comparing the two stock details. The Commissioner (Appeals) took note of the fact that the assessee also advanced reasons for such difference; firstly that there was a split in the business of the assessee comp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d was not based on quantity details of stock. The Commissioner (Appeals) upon appreciating the material on record found as a matter of fact that since the quantity was not disclosed in the statement given to the bank, there was no discrepancy as far as the quantity is concerned. He further observed that there are various decisions in favour of the department in cases where the difference in quantity on the basis of stock statement given to the bank and as per books remained unexplained. However, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version